Chorlton_Latic Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Everything you say is spot on, except implying that it's been successful. We've played teams that we should be beating, and probably would have if we'd gone for it a bit more. It's early days yet but we'll come up against sterner opposition, who will put away the chances Fleetwood missed. It's not been the 'winning style', because we've won 1 in 5/7 if you cups. I'm not necessarily saying it's my view of successful, and as you rightly point out, it's clearly not yet a winning style, but for a new manager coming in to the management gig who sees 3 fairly strong away performances at some tricky places, and 4 points from 2 home games, with performances that, while clearly in need of improvement, have elements which can be built on, I can't see why he'll change it radically, despite what we ideally want to see. How else can he measure his success? He doesnt seem the type to be satisfied with draws, but if his media persona is anything to go by, he'll relentlessly look for positives and see that if it weren't for a horrendous error v Shrewsbury, and a more clinical finishing at Bury they may have 4 points extra. Yes, it's ifs and buts, but from his pov, I get the feeling he won't see much reason to change things too much, with the belief we've not been that far away from what he's wanted. To put it another way, are we really surprised that a recently retired former lower league defender with the most middling of careers doesn't favour an expansive, open style of free flowing football? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I have my reservations about Kelly but couldn't agree more. Seconded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands on Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Kelly has told us what we wanted to hear - attacking football and road to Wembley - rather than being completely honest. I can understand the reluctance to play our first team in the JPT having lost two crucial players to injury. I could understand playing the second string just to give them game time but don't talk about going to Wembley. To play one up front in a Premiership style requires full backs who overlap and most of the time our full backs are looking over their shoulders with keeping possession the priority and by crossing the ball they are giving up possession. To play one up front in a Premiership style requires one touch players. We have Dunn but that I think is it. Still if Bury was a glimpse of things to come I'm content for this experiment to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Kelly has told us what we wanted to hear - attacking football and road to Wembley - rather than being completely honest. Maybe he was being but the players had other ideas......? I think his interviews are as honest as we've seen from a manager in years. He has to waffle a bit as that's expected twice a week nowadays but whenever he says anything of substance it's always bang on the money for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chorlton_Latic Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 A lot of call for 4-4-2 on here. Am I the only one who thinks a switch to 4-4-2 would just not be wise at all? I get that it’s the most traditional formation, and we ourselves used to muller teams of the park with it in the glory years. But does there come a point where we have to acknowledge that in the last few years, even at the lower levels, the game has got so muddled up in tactical puzzles and stifling, that we have to accept that 4-4-2 becomes more counterproductive to the ‘attacking’ style we all want to see? At any level, it takes an insane amount of energy, as you’re already fighting a losing battle in midfield if a team chooses to have an extra man than you in there, which let’s face it, pretty much every away team does. You think David Dunn looks shagged after 60 mins now, imagine if he was chasing more of the ball without the extra man in there!! If it’s not done well, and it seldom is with the players on offer at our level, it becomes predictable, easy to outwit, and the extra man up front becomes completely moot, because no service gets to him. Unless you start hoofing it up and bypassing midfield, which I think we can safely say most our fans absolutely detest, to the point where they’ve threatened to stop attending, or in some cases, have stopped attending. The amount of times we played 4 across the middle under Dickov and Johnson, only for a ‘lesser’ team to come and pack the midfield with 5, and completely strangle the life out of us is too many to count. I’d hazard a guess that most of those ended up with us having 0 in the scoreline and barely troubling the opposition keeper. The best football under Dickov was arguably when we played the kind of 4-2-3-1, with Kuqi supported by Simpson, Taylor etc and under Johnson, we were similarly bullied all over the shop until we switched to 5 in midfield. It’s not just an English thing either, the only high profile team in European football at the moment that I can think of off the top of my head that play 4-4-2 regularly and are remotely successful is Atletico Madrid, and that’s because all their players, to a man buy in to the managers philosophy, are absolute warriors and must be high on something. There’s a lot of accusations of narcissism leveled at managers now – especially young ones - ‘trying to be clever’, solely relying on their ‘coaching manuals’ and trying to play their fancy formations, but at the end of the day, there’s no other reason they’d play a certain way except they just don’t want to lose the game. As long as it’s fluid and flexible and can become a 4-3-3, I have no issue with 1 up front with fast wingers-cum-forwards and an extra man in midfield supporting. I agree we need something to break the mould, but immediately handing the control and initiative to <insert cloggers here> in every game is not going to be it. It's not to say our current tactics don't need some serious tweaking, but I’d much rather go man on man and give the undoubted quality of our central midfield the chance to dominate than revisit past failures again and again because it worked 25 years ago. Bloody modern football, eh?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I hope our manager isn't over complicating tactics as much as some of you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I hope our manager isn't over complicating tactics as much as some of you I think that's doubtful, hearing him talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 A lot of call for 4-4-2 on here. Am I the only one who thinks a switch to 4-4-2 would just not be wise at all? I get that its the most traditional formation, and we ourselves used to muller teams of the park with it in the glory years. But does there come a point where we have to acknowledge that in the last few years, even at the lower levels, the game has got so muddled up in tactical puzzles and stifling, that we have to accept that 4-4-2 becomes more counterproductive to the attacking style we all want to see? At any level, it takes an insane amount of energy, as youre already fighting a losing battle in midfield if a team chooses to have an extra man than you in there, which lets face it, pretty much every away team does. You think David Dunn looks shagged after 60 mins now, imagine if he was chasing more of the ball without the extra man in there!! If its not done well, and it seldom is with the players on offer at our level, it becomes predictable, easy to outwit, and the extra man up front becomes completely moot, because no service gets to him. Unless you start hoofing it up and bypassing midfield, which I think we can safely say most our fans absolutely detest, to the point where theyve threatened to stop attending, or in some cases, have stopped attending. The amount of times we played 4 across the middle under Dickov and Johnson, only for a lesser team to come and pack the midfield with 5, and completely strangle the life out of us is too many to count. Id hazard a guess that most of those ended up with us having 0 in the scoreline and barely troubling the opposition keeper. The best football under Dickov was arguably when we played the kind of 4-2-3-1, with Kuqi supported by Simpson, Taylor etc and under Johnson, we were similarly bullied all over the shop until we switched to 5 in midfield. Its not just an English thing either, the only high profile team in European football at the moment that I can think of off the top of my head that play 4-4-2 regularly and are remotely successful is Atletico Madrid, and thats because all their players, to a man buy in to the managers philosophy, are absolute warriors and must be high on something. Theres a lot of accusations of narcissism leveled at managers now especially young ones - trying to be clever, solely relying on their coaching manuals and trying to play their fancy formations, but at the end of the day, theres no other reason theyd play a certain way except they just dont want to lose the game. As long as its fluid and flexible and can become a 4-3-3, I have no issue with 1 up front with fast wingers-cum-forwards and an extra man in midfield supporting. I agree we need something to break the mould, but immediately handing the control and initiative to <insert cloggers here> in every game is not going to be it. It's not to say our current tactics don't need some serious tweaking, but Id much rather go man on man and give the undoubted quality of our central midfield the chance to dominate than revisit past failures again and again because it worked 25 years ago. Bloody modern football, eh?! Forget the chessboard, as frankly mr shankley said go gung ho at home, otherwise you can expect exactly the same as now. Btw John Sheridan as a player often came up against packed midfields, he merely stood in the centre circle picking passes to split defences..we have players now such as Dunn and Jones who should be capable of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I kinda agree with BP1960. Going for a lie down now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dec666 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I'd go back go back to the diamond at home. Coleman Brown Burn Wilson Mills Dieng Croft Jones Dunn Turner Forte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chorlton_Latic Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Forget the chessboard, as frankly mr shankley said go gung ho at home, otherwise you can expect exactly the same as now. Btw John Sheridan as a player often came up against packed midfields, he merely stood in the centre circle picking passes to split defences..we have players now such as Dunn and Jones who should be capable of that. Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than to see that , but what's the reason hardly any manager can successfully implement it? Is it as simple as we want to make it out to be? Is there simply too much at risk for them? It's a curious one. Also, Sheridan, at least for us in his latter years, used to play in a 3 quite a lot didn't he? Stitch used to play wingbacks a fair bit. He was paired with Innes and Dux, Dux & Carss - even Dux and Orlygsson when we beat City at Maine Rd!! Edited September 3, 2015 by cheshire_latic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 John Sheridan as a player often came up against packed midfields, he merely stood in the centre circle picking passes to split defences..we have players now such as Dunn and Jones who should be capable of that. And what if the packed midfield is packed with :censored:e as it often is in this division...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 2 in the middle or 3 in the middle, we have midfielders who can pick passes effectively. However the issue is the we face a sole striker stranded at times but playing 2 or 3 in midfield relies then on the wingers/wide attackers. If Croft has the ball on the right then our left attacker must come in to support the main striker with support from midfield; vice versa if ball is played up the left channel. Doesn't seem to be enough movement off the ball then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 What restricts the opposition more when we're at home - a five man "packed" midfield that they feel the need to match or two upfront that they feel the need to worry about? :censored: me, I'm at it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Maybe he was being but the players had other ideas......? I think his interviews are as honest as we've seen from a manager in years. He has to waffle a bit as that's expected twice a week nowadays but whenever he says anything of substance it's always bang on the money for me... When asked about Poleon’s situation at Shrewsbury, manager Kelly simply stated: “Dominic hasn’t been selected.” See? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I kinda agree with BP1960. Going for a lie down now. Lol..when you wake up we can continue argueing..all part of the banter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chorlton_Latic Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 What restricts the opposition more when we're at home - a five man "packed" midfield that they feel the need to match or two upfront that they feel the need to worry about? :censored: me, I'm at it now. Let us rejoice and dissect 'Inverting the Pyramid' at length to celebrate your conversion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 2 in the middle or 3 in the middle, we have midfielders who can pick passes effectively. However the issue is the we face a sole striker stranded at times but playing 2 or 3 in midfield relies then on the wingers/wide attackers. If Croft has the ball on the right then our left attacker must come in to support the main striker with support from midfield; vice versa if ball is played up the left channel. Doesn't seem to be enough movement off the ball then. But there is. If Croft had tucked away a couple of sitters coming in from the right it would all look different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) What I find quite unbelievable is that losing one player can have been this destructive. Cassidy was obviously a pivotal part in Kelly's plans, and therefore to not have a secondary tactic if he got injured (a player asked to perform his role is bound to pick up knocks from time-to-time) was very naive. We're paying for that lack of foresight currently. It's very silly to call for the manager's head already - you expect them to make these errors as a rookie. Edited September 5, 2015 by NewBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 But even with Cassidy we were playing one up front. This sort of defensive crap year after year is soul destroying to watch. Even without the red card Bradford would have won that game today. They were all over us in the first twenty minutes as we set up every week to keep it tight and by doing so invite the opposition on. One up front only works with midfielders making runs instead our lot are in their own half leaving our lone striker so isolated he might as well go for a pint in the Clayton green I've seen enough of Kelly's philosophy its :censored:, he's another Penney. The bare minimum is you have a go at home simple as if not he should do one and take defensive Dean with him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I agree it's soul-destroying. You can just sense it in the crowd. When there is noise it is in desperation rather than pride. Although, I think one up top with Cassidy is a totally different proposition. There may have even been runners beyond him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Kelly's moaning that Forte's a big loss.....apart from a great strike at Walsall WTF has he done to be labeled a big loss. If he's that big a loss why were we prepared to let him sign for Barnsley? Lots of contradiction going on in Kelly's pre and post match comments. Really want him and the club to succeed but not convinced he can deliver. The coaching staff at the club don't seem to be working as a unit and Kelly's interaction with Holden on a match day is non existent. He said he knows what it takes to get out of this division but have seen nothing in our play to suggest he's putting it into practice. A couple more losses, especially at home, and this could get really messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 We played pretty well at Bury and Walsall, the three home games have been mainly awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 When he speaks he sounds like he is in awe at the ability of our players and talks about how big a loss such a player is and how well another played. I want you to not be happy with the :censored: being served up Darren and improve them as players and a team. One up front at home is absolutely inexcusable unless it is with 2 wide front men (like Barca play). 1 up front with 5 midfielders is absolutely piss poor. It's what Premier League sides fighting for survival play. Not bloody good enough. Something major needs to change tactically or the crowd will turn poisonous and he will either lose his job or we will get our lowest attendances ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Guru Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 When he speaks he sounds like he is in awe at the ability of our players and talks about how big a loss such a player is and how well another played. I want you to not be happy with the :censored: being served up Darren and improve them as players and a team. One up front at home is absolutely inexcusable unless it is with 2 wide front men (like Barca play). 1 up front with 5 midfielders is absolutely piss poor. It's what Premier League sides fighting for survival play. Not bloody good enough. Something major needs to change tactically or the crowd will turn poisonous and he will either lose his job or we will get our lowest attendances ever. I think lowest attendance records will keep being broken year after year for as long as the owners show the apathy in the football side of things. I genuinely feel we have blown the biggest opportunity to have the most positive season since we reached the playoffs. New stand new manager has been well and truely wasted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.